Hague, Macpherson, racism, the police and the PC brigade

A long OP.

Before I proceed, a little background. 5 years ago in
England a black teenage youth called Stephen Lawrence was killed in a racist attack by 5 white youths (allegedly). These 5 youths escaped punishment due to certain legal technicalities which can be attributed to sloppy police proceedures and racist practises amongst the investigating constables. The government commissioned Lord Macpherson to do a report on racist police proceedures. The result was a document called the Macpherson Report which condemned very widespread racism in the police force.

5 years on.

Another black youth named Damilola Taylor was murdered about a month ago. As with the Lawrence case 5 years previously the case was snatched up by the media and paraded on the front pages of all the major newspapers for about a week. It is believed that the perpetrators of this particular crime were all black. Here’s where William Hague comes in…

Hague is leader of the Conservative Party and he recently caused a huge row in Parliament by saying that police morale was at an all time low because of the damaging inferences of the Macpherson report. According to the Daily Mail newspaper he apparently said
“** [The Mcpherson inquiry branded] ** Every officer and every branch of the force as racist”

He went on to attack the “Attitude of the Condescending Liberal elite that has never trusted the police and now wants us to believe that they are all racists”

He said that the Macpherson report was directly responsible for the vast drop in morale in the police force in recent years and as such has led to a crisis on the streets. This comment at least can, in part, be backed up by the 8% rise in violent crime on the streets this year.

Hague feels that the police are unable to do their jobs properly because black suspects can accuse them of racism and thereby seriously hamper the case against them and white liberals have lost trust in them by perceiving them all as racist bigots. Also imformants, who are a major aid to the police in arrests, have more reason to distrust policemen, after all, who would trust a bunch of racist bigots such as the UK Met? The opinion that the Macpherson report contributed to this state of affairs seems to be supported by one ‘suggestion’ which the report made to the Met. regarding the treatment of ethnic minorities and, among other things, the definition of what makes a case racist.

Now, surely this includes complaints against the police themselves. If a criminal decided to press a false allegation of racism against a policeman, this clause suggests that all it really needs to be successful is the opinion of the plaintiff. If the plaintiff is some lowlife scumbag drug dealer, how on earth can we trust him not to take advantage of this? If his case came to court it would certainly count in his favour if he made allegations of racist treatment against him. It wouldcertainly slow the trial down.

Hague also said that he wanted a complete return of the polices ability to use sweeping Stop and Search methods which give policemen powers to, as the name suggests, stop anyone they please and search them. This proceedure came under immense criticism when it was discovered that police used the technique disproportionately against Blacks. Sir Paul Condon, chief of the Metropolitan police also went so far as to say that black people are responsible for more small crimes such as class B&C drug offences, muggings and thefts.
Labour responded by accusing Hague of taking the Damilola Taylor case (which inspired this whole affair) and using it as a political football.
So what do you think? Do you think that by trying to stamp out racism in the police the Macpherson report has gone too far and destroyed morale amongst officers? Is Hague right in blaming the “Condescenting liberal elite” and the so called PC brigade for wrecking police morale to satisfy their own definitions of what’s right at the expense of good policing? Or do you think that Hague is just using this case to hit back at the overtly PC New Labour? Gentlemen, the floor is yours.

BTW
If you want to read William Hagues speech you can find it here http://www.conservatives.com/newspeeches.cfm?article_id=489

or, who guards the guardians? If the police were using racist policies to (what we in America would call, though pronoun wrong) harass minorities, that is a bad thing and should stop. There is no reason police shouldn’t be able to continue to perform their duties, such as stopping crimes and arresting criminals. Perhaps the police are engaging in a bit of a work-stoppage on purpose out of resentment towards the report, and that has contributed partly to the increase in crime.

Hague is a complete chump.

Whatever genuine debate lies at the hear of this is continually overwhelmed by his desperate floundering to score political points.

(For non-UK Dopers: the Conservative Party has been in a shambolic state since Tony Blair took office. William Hague is a former schoolboy member presiding over a shadow – i.e. opposition – cabinet deeply divided on European integration. He has an unerring tendency for knee-jerk statements and laughable PR U-turns. The Tories are unlikely to stand a chance in the next election, and many see him as a ‘fall guy’ to man the wheel until a more suitable leader can be found)

In my opinion the Macpherson report contained many valid conclusions:

(Note: the quote above comes from this article, from a respectable newspaper, but bear in mind it’s written by a very prominent civil rights lawyer)

I’m sure that morale in the Metropolitan Police has been affected by the report. I’m sure there are good officers who feel ashamed and angry. But what else could the report have said? Some plain-speaking was called for.Blaming a “PC elite” is a complete red herring; labelling just makes it easier for Hague to attack. Regarding the twelfth recommendation, this has not been formally implemented; the definition of “racist” is still left to the police and Labour ministers are no keener than Conservative shadow ministers to implement it more formally.

As various observers have noted, you have to wonder how it’s taken Hague 21 months to speak out against the report, or whether several recent by-election defeats and embarrassing revelations following a hard-line anti-drugs stance have had anything to do with this outburst.

Stephen Lawrence FAQ

It’s hard to comment about the specifics of what might be going on in England. But in general, the proposition (that such reports undermine the police) is a very rational one. It is part of the nature of police work that you frequently find yourself in situations where the exact details of what happened are unclear, and many of the witnesses are apt to be unreliable or have strong incentives to favor one particular version. Taking a strong stand against possible police racism puts the police greatly at risk. Furthermore, it is important to realize that putting an increased emphasis on fighting police racism is likely to make minorities even more distrustful of the police than they would otherwise be. (This is counterintuitive, but is the result of increased publicity and disproportionate emphasis placed on negative aspects of police work. As an example, there is a public perception that the NYC police have been disproportionately apt to resort to violence under NYC Mayor Guiliani. This is factually incorrect, and the perception appears to be wholly the result of an increased emphasis on such incidents under the Guiliani tenure).

Having said all that, one cannot allow police officers free reign either. So the specific facts of the British situation would have to be clarified.

Firstly, for those who are interested, here’s a link to the Macpherson Report.

Contrary to what William Hague and the Daily Mail believe, Macpherson did not brand “every officer and every branch of the force as racist”. Macpherson said that the Met was “institutionally racist”. What he meant by institutional racism was:

He was very careful to point out that he had detected no signs of individual racism on the part of most of the officers involved in the investigation. In short, he was saying that the Metropolitan police, for a variety of reasons, tended to treat black people less favourably than white people. Of course, this suggestion is much more difficult to refute than the allegation that “every officer” is racist, so the likes of the Daily Mail prefer to gloss over its subtleties.

The number of “sus law” stop and searches has fallen since Macpherson but the proportion of them which lead to an arrest has risen. This suggests that, far from preventing the police from doing their job, the Macpherson recommendations have made it more difficult for them to harass innocent people.

I think you will find that trust in the police among London’s black popualtion was never very high in the first place. The reductio of this argument is that it is better for a police force to be racist and corrupt and try to cover it up than to acknowledge it has problems and try to adderss them. It’s like saying the GMC should be disbanded because it undermines public confidence in the medical profession.

No. Macpherson is talking about how the police approach investigations and investigating an incident as a racist incident does not imply that the incident took place as described. This recommendation in the Macpherson report immediately precedes a list of guidelines in the investigation of racist incidents. In other words, what the Report says is “if somebody thinks it’s a racist incident, you should follow these guidelines in the investigation”. He is certainly not saying that guilt should be presumed.

The problem is that not one of the right-wing criticismes of Macpherson holds water. The Daily Mail has always been a deeply racist paper. Some of their recent pieces on gypsies could have come straight out of Der Sturmer. Hague now appears to be going for the racist vote by slagging off asylum seekers and the “condescending liberal elite” (Lord Falconer and Polly Toynbee, apparently).

I wonder what he meant by this:

He may have forgotten that the only reason the killers of PC Blakelock are still walking free is that the police arrested three black men immediately after the murder, fitted them up and secured their convictions with false evidence. Those men have recently been awarded substantial compensation for false imprisonment. Placed in that context, I think the Blakelock remark is very sinister indeed.

First off, some more history.

Throughout the 1960’s the discrimination against minority races was an issue that everyone tried to ignore but it would not go away.

When Harold Wison and the Labour party came into government for a second term it had become a major election issue.

The Conservative party knew they were going to lose and pulled out everything they could to grab the popular vote and this caused a violent backlash against minorities when they were accused of taking ‘British’ jobs and ‘Britsh’ council housing and that immigration from the colonies to the UK should be stopped.(If anybody remembers Enoch Powell’s infamous and inflammatry ‘River of blood’ speech that was what set the tone in working class districts)

The irony is that in the 50’s it was the Conservative party who, on seeing the need for a larger workforce than was actually available, had encouraged and in fact financed the passage of immigrants to the UK.

Back to the late 60’s and the Labour government passed the Race Relations act which did much what you might expect it to do, such as make certain patterns of behaviour a criminal offence. This was later amended and also was augmented by the Equal Opportunities act which forbade discrimination against any group on irrelevant grounds such as sex, race, religion, sexual orientation.

An important part of that original act of parliament was its scope, only a one line statement but that line is at the very root of why relations between police and ethnic minorities in the UK is now so poor.
Almost everyone had to comply with that act except for the police.This line was only included because of lobbying by the judiciary and police and they had the ear of many voting Members of Parliament.It was only included at the last reading of the bill to secure enough votes to pass it.

Effectively the police could not be sued or prosecuted for racist behaviour either within its own ranks or in its treatment of the public.

Nearly every case brought by minority race police officers against their employers has been brought under Equal Opportunities legislation or European Human Rights acts and not the Race Relations acts.

The history of police abuse and a failure to do anything about these issues for thirty years, and the impotence of the law to restrain police from their behaviour which would have been illegal for any other person is the major reason why minority groups mistrust the police so much.

Putting all this down means nothing unless I give you examples.

In the UK a raft of very repressive laws was passed to keep Napoleonic war veterans off the streets, begging and the like. War pensions for non-commissioned ranks and the war disabled did not exist,hence a large number of disaffected and potentially revolutionary men were on the streets.Among these laws was the now infamous ‘sus’ laws.

The ‘suspicion’ law provided the means to convict and incarcerate any person who was suspected of being likely to commit a crime. Another part of these laws was the conspiracy law. Here a person could be charged with conspiring to commit an offence with a person who was likely to commit an offence.

The standard of evidence was very loose indeed, if you were carrying a crowbar then it was ‘going equipped for crime’ but other than being informed upon the only evidence required was the word of a police officer.

Not hard to see the problems with that really but these laws were passed at a time when standards were very differant (early 1800’s) but they were disastrously applied to modern life with its values.

Forward to the 1970’s and 80’s.

Virtually eveyr police force in the UK with the exception of the Metropolitan police in London dropped the use of these archaic rules as either unworkable, immoral or plain unfair.

The Metropolitan police used them differantly.Under powers provided by these laws they massively increased the use of stop and search of persons who they felt like searching, no warrants are required (in the US this would have soon been jumped upon by civil rights groups)If you refused on the grounds that there was no reasonable cause to this you were charged with obstructing the police in their duty, plus the matter would be discussed between the suspect and a few burly policemen down the cop shop.There were proven incidents of assaults by police and several black men died in police custody.

One celebrated case a black man had had a health checkup for insurance purposes, was arrested very soon after when walking home and was very badly beaten up - his hearing was damaged. Police claimed he had been drunk and abusive and was already bruised and battered but lost their case and paid compensation yet no police officer was ever disciplined.

Back to stop and search - minorities in London account for less than 30 % of the population and yet were subjected to over 85% of stop and search. One case an A-level student on his way to college was waiting for a bus when he was arrested and convicted on the sus law.

In the case of Steven Lawrence he was attacked and murdered by five white youths but when the police began to deal with the case they assumed without any evidence whatsoever that Steven must have been a drug dealer and gave it a low priority.
Eyewitnesses gave police the names of the youths but police did nothing at all about this until days later.One of the youths was actually observed dumping clothes from a plastic bag by a police officer and yet those clothes were never retrieved.It is highly likely that those clothes bore Stevens blood as it had been a messy killing.

The Conservatives refused to appoint an inquiry into the failure of this police investigation even though further inquiries by private investigators and finally a differant police force concluded that the youths were responsible but that the evidence was too poor to succesfully prosecute.The youths were videotaped talking and joking about his murder and how they had done it but it was taken in a manner that prevented it from being used as evidence of self-confession since no warrant to carry out this surveillance had been granted.
The parents of Steven Lawrenece brught a private prosecution which asked damning questions of the police investigation and even the trial judge recommended and inquiry into police behaviour.

Come a change of government an inquiry was set up which also took into account the performance of police into the investigations of all racist incidents and the racism of the police itself.

That enquiry produced the Macpherson report referred to in the OP.

Judge Macpherson is not known for his wishy washy liberal views, judges seldom are, and his report cited specific cases and practices by the Metropolitan police where they were, without any doubt at all, racist both in practice, and in procedures. ie institutionally racist.

This was accepted wholly by the police and they have since been included within the scope of the race relations act.
The Macpherson report and the Steven Lawrence affair was the culmination of years of police racism which has been cited as being partly responsible for the riots on Broadwater Farm housing estate where Officer Blakelock was butchered by a mob and another black man found guilty of his murder and who has since been acquitted.
The media realeased details that would never have been permitted just before the trial of the accused man in this trial.Those details were provided by police.

Add to all this the number of men freed having served many years for crimes they never committed, such as the Birmingham 6, Guildford 4, the Darvel brothers, Stefan Kiszchko, and several others and you can see why confidence in the police has fallen in certain areas and why they hardly have the consent of people in those places to enforce the law fairly and effectively and it can be no surprise that police morale has been badly affected.

Unfortuantely William Hague is almost, but not quite, as unpopular now as when the Tories lost power to Labour in the last election and with another election due in less than six months and then you can see that there is less concern for law and order as such and more concern on his part to make themsleves even be noticed by the public who for a large part simply do not see him as a credible Tory leader ,and by extension the party he leads being a comptetant governnment.

William Hague is doing what many desparate and impotent politicians do, he is jumping on any bandwagon.It does not matter to him if there are real flesh and blood bereaved parents feelings to consider.What an asshole.

It is a shame that he seems incapable of seeing that it has been the authoritarianism of times past from 1800’s right the way through to now that is the source of the problems that he so enthusiastically waves his pathetic little flag about.
Democracy is about having a responsible and effective opposition to keep the ruling party in order.

When are we going to get a real and effective oppostion ?

Time to let someone else have their say but I have not finished by any means.

Well it seems, for the most part, that we all agree that Hague is an utter, utter moron. No big revelations there, he’s known as Bandwagon Willie for a good reason IMO. However, is it possible he may have a point in this particular instance? If you were a policeman and a black man in your custody called you a racist bastard because he didn’t have a clear definition of the term Institutionalised racism, but had seen it on the news so much accompanied by pictures of Sir Paul Condon that the term and the constabulary were inextricably linked, do you think it would be detrimental to your morale? After all, it’s your job to help people, you’re not exactly getting a munificient salary for it but what you are getting instead is your efforts thrown back in your face. It would certainly get me down.

All the posters so far in this thread have a clear idea of what institutionalised racism is. Lots of people don’t. Hell, I didn’t until I had a look at the report (Cheers for the link BTW Tom) and I don’t suppose there were that many people who were prepared to either look on the net or go down to their local library when they could get the gist of it on the 6 o’clock news. I think that it is likely police morale has been weakened as a consequence of the report, although this consequence was inintentional, because even though the report did not say that every officer and every branch of the force is a racist, this makes little difference to certain sections of the public who are hostile towards police constables and to the criminal element of society who would gladly welcome more ammunition to throw against the people in charge of their arrest and incarceration.

I’d also like to restate here that I believe Hague to be, as matt said A complete Chump, he’s handled this whole debate terribly, however I think he may have hit upon a relevant crisis to this nations police force. Police numbers are at an all time low. No-one wants to join and the fact that quite a lot of people see the police as racist guarantees that people from that quarter will not join the police. It also makes it a more difficult choice for others who don’t want to be known as racists. Granted, the latter group would most likely be made up of people, the majority of whom, would discard the idea of a wholly racist police force. However it would also be made up of a small minority who wouldn’t and in these days of falling police numbers and rising crime every copper on the beat counts.

in reply to Jmullaney, I don’t think that policemen would stop working in an efficient manner as a protest against being called racist because IMO there are better ways to do that, for example public relations exercises, press conferences, and, if the worst comes to the worst, all out strike action.

Also TomH,

Perhaps I didn’t make myself completely clear. I was referring to allegations made against the officers, not abstract cases on the streets, but an official complaint lodged in the station itself. In the wake of the Macpherson report these race complaints were, and quite rightly too, being taken more seriously. However I think that there could be a chance that unscrupulous people could take advantage of this. If someone on trial can find evidence of racism in the investigation of his case, even if it’s just a matter of accidentally overhearing a racist joke in the police canteen, it could (and I emphasise * could *) make for potent ammunition for the defence, even if the suspect is guilty after all.

Agreed. It pained me to use them as a source of information but unfortunately I’m not the one who pays the paper bills in my house and the Daily Mail featured excerpts from Hauges speech. For once in their piteous existance they were a modicum of use to me. The official link I provided was found on The Guardian homepage.

I never said it was better to have a racist police force than to confront racism. If that was what you inferred then I’d like to set that straight. At the time of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry the police force was institutionally racist. I also think that this problem has, at least in part, been rectified and this can be demonstrated by the increasing amount of people from ethnic minorities who are joining the police force. I also recognise that there is still a way to go and I’m not saying for a moment that that police reform should stop outright. I do however think that, thanks in part to the MacPherson report, the police are being portrayed as much more racist than, in fact, they are. I have a couple of friends who are in the police force, neither of whom are racist. However one of them did express his concerns that his efforts were going unappreciated because of the reputation that he, as a police officer, already posessed.

In short the point I’m trying to make is NOT that the police force is free of racism because it isnt. It’s that the amount of racism has been overstated and that the ordinary constabulary themselves are feeling the pressure as they are painted with the same brush as those condemned in the Macpherson report and this is making them less willing to play their vital role in society.

I have the flu and I’m tired so I’m going to stop typing now and go to bed.

G’night.

The “glamour” of a police career may well have been hurt by the criticisms of the Macpherson Report. On the other hand, I’m not sure that it would have been any more attractive a career choice (especially to any minorities) if it had remained an institutionally racist organisation uncriticised by any reports.

VoiceofReason,

I understand that you were talking about complaints against the police but even in the light of the Macpherson recommendations they would still be treated in the same way as regards the burden of proof. You can’t cry “racism” and defy the person you’re accusing to prove their innocence and that’s not what Macpherson recommended: he wanted the police to recognise when there was a racial dimension to a complaint; that doesn’t mean assuming that the complaint is accurate.

Sorry, I didn’t mean to suggest that you had said that–my mistake. I was suggesting that some of the anti-Macpherson brigade seem to be suggesting that it would have been better if the problems in the Met had nevber been brough to light. In any event, the average black Londoner had very little confidence in the police in the first place (with good reason) so I don’t see that the argument that it has undermined public confidence is a valid one. On the contrary, I think it’s probably the first step towards rebuilding public confidence.

FWIW, I think somne of the other police services have a fair greivance. The Met is one of the most incompetent, racist and corrupt forces in the country and I have some sympathy for the police forces in, say Derbyshire or Devon and Cornwall, who have been condemned by the actions of another force.

One of the main things that has helped undermine confidence of the police is, as TomH rightly states, the performance of the Metropolitan police force which, by virtue of its being the law enforcement agency of London, has always generated far more publicity than all the other police forces in the rest of the UK put together.

The Met has paid millions out in compensation but I cannot recall an officer dismissed as a result of this.I’m sure it has happened but one would think that when the Met accepts liability as often as it has been made to do by the courts that there would be many more dismissals.

One of the great missed opportunities for restoring public confidence was lost when the police complaints authority(PCA) was originally set up consisting,as it did, of police officers.
No matter how diligent their investigations were they would always be accused of closing ranks in controversial decisions, and it apears to me that at least some of them were not conducted properly.

Now that this has been taken out of police hands the PCA is more likely to have credibility and this can only be good for the police as a whole.